Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

The F-35 is still slated to replace a lot of late 1970s and 1980s aircraft, so it will probably still be completed and put into production. At least the A and C models. The B model is the one they seem to be having the technical trouble with.

If they don't, they will have a problem filling in the roles as those older aircraft become too old and worn out to service for combat duty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

Theyll add cloaking devices next.

I disagree. Next it will be Sopwith Camels. With all this high-tech stuff in use, they'll never expect a swarm of low-tech Sopwith Camels.

Lol. They just couldn't resist putting that in the article could they?

Yeah. Damn you British nerds, can't you guys just resist the urge to pun in Queen's English?

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

The tax rate is irrelevant.
They are simply not paying their taxes.
Multimillion € businesses reported joke numbers like 500€ business volume and zero income per year and got through with it for a long time. That's why the state is out of money.

Given what I've read about Afghanistan that sounds entirely plausible. ... An awful lot of Afghanis don't appreciate American values (looking back on it, I can't help but think people were naive to think this wouldn't be the case) and find the presence of American troops offensive.

Why limit it to Afghanistan? Those sorts of emotions and reactions seem to be practically universal across all human cultures. It exists here in America, too. Just take a look at how fired up people get at the notion that some want to impose sharia law here, or the idea that China owns us and that we should all learn Chinese. What's going on is a rejection of external forces overwriting our own culture and societal operation.

The problem is something that aohige touched on: that there's almost a double standard, a certain intellectual blindness when it comes to us and everyone else. Americans reject sharia law because it seems backwards and evil to us; we assume that because we feel that way, then everyone else must see it as such, too. Similarly, because we like our way of life, we assume that it's the best fit for everyone, and that everyone would appreciate it. Yet the reality is that for many people, it represents a social order and a way of life. Perhaps to those people, the American way of living seems strange and even harmful.

And troop occupations - that should surprise no one. Again, imagine if it were happening in your own home country. Pick a country that you're wary of, but that we're not at war with; popular choices in the United States will probably be either Russia or China. Imagine if they set up military bases, and occasionally busted down doors to capture or kill political dissidents. Even if they weren't screwing up and occasionally massacring innocent people or causing other destruction, I'm pretty sure that people would be miffed about those actions. It undermines your own community's autonomy and creates a source of danger.

The people who thought that everything American would be immediately accepted and welcomed either believed that fairy tales were historical accounts or they were just so self-centric that it didn't occur to them that not everyone wants to live as they do. Given that we recently had some Americans booing the "golden rule" (treat others how you want to be treated), I'm guessing we have a case of the latter growing. Kindergarten teachers, take note: you have a critical lesson to instill in your students!

Why limit it to Afghanistan? Those sorts of emotions and reactions seem to be practically universal across all human cultures. It exists here in America, too. Just take a look at how fired up people get at the notion that some want to impose sharia law here, or the idea that China owns us and that we should all learn Chinese. What's going on is a rejection of external forces overwriting our own culture and societal operation.

True, it's not just an Afghan thing. I do think that lack of contact with other countries/cultures, tribalism, and the experience of having been occupied by the Soviet makes the issue particularly acute in Afghanistan though. It's probably one of the worst places in the world to expect western values to take hold

And I really do think that a lot of people confuse tribal-level dislike of the Taliban for actually liking the US - I keep hearing that many of the the US's allies in Afghnistan were also allies of the Soviets at one time.

True, it's not just an Afghan thing. I do think that lack of contact with other countries/cultures, tribalism, and the experience of having been occupied by the Soviet makes the issue particularly acute in Afghanistan though. It's probably one of the worst places in the world to expect western values to take hold

And I really do think that a lot of people confuse tribal-level dislike of the Taliban for actually liking the US - I keep hearing that many of the the US's allies in Afghnistan were also allies of the Soviets at one time.

Age old enemy of my enemy if my friend. IF(Never happen) Taliban and its supporters were truly removed, the tribes would probably turn just as fast on the ISAF.

It is ironic though. The West's allies from 1979-1989 turned into the enemies of the West, while the 'collaborators' of Soviets often aid the ISAF now.

Plus, Afghanistan is just a land that does not like to be dominated. Many empires have tried, such as Russian, USSR, British, Ottoman, Persian, and all have failed. Only the Mongolians seemed to have any success there, and that was because they depopulated the hell out of it.

It doesn't have to be the correct data either. As the only way to test that would be to either steal secrets to confirm it, or shot one down using that data.

Though handing out secrets like that could be classes as treason.

The problem is that this is Russia we are talking about. You know, the guys we designed the anti-missile shield to fight. The ones that might let that data get into Iranian hands (for a price of course), and thus nuetralize the entire reason for handing over the data to the Russians inthe first place.

Except. If the Russians go for it, there will be based close to them in Romania and Poland. And the data could be wrong or a different missile used instead after the bases are established. Which means that if the system works and the data is incorrect....the Russian's First Strike ability with nuclear weapons is gone (well diminished at least), while the US's ability to First Strike is viable and potentially able to counter the returning missiles....ending with Mutually Assured Destruction being cancelled. US wins by default of Russian missiles not being able to reach their targets (or fewer of them being able to reach their targets).

Age old enemy of my enemy if my friend. IF(Never happen) Taliban and its supporters were truly removed, the tribes would probably turn just as fast on the ISAF.

Hard to say on that one. I get the impression a lot of these warlords are opportunists (also thugs and possibly war criminals, but that's a whole different topic).

I'm pretty much going to have to take a break from this board for a couple weeks due to an assignment (I have difficulty moderating my participation even when I'm busy, so I pretty much do need to go cold turkey). but for those who find this topic interesting, I recommend the books of journalist Eric Margolis. War at the Top of the World is mainly concerned with the potential for conflict between nuclear armed nations in Central asia but talks a lot about Afghanistan and Pakistan (both of which the author visited frequently in the 80s), while the more recent American Raj traces how the US has gone from loved to disliked by many in the muslim world since WWII. I especially like the latter because it shows how the various conflicts in the muslim world fit into the "big picture" of how the US is perceived there. Just be prepared that while his main case is solid, you may want to disregard a few of the more speculative bits and that the author actually traveled with the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the 80s and hence is more sympathetic to them than many people are probably comfortable with.

(Edit: Google Book's sample of War at the Top of the World includes some of the parts about Afghanistan.)

I always get a chuckle out of hearing this... is there any land or group of people that likes to be dominated?

Too true but Afghanistan gains its notoriety because it has gone against empires and has consistently won. In fact they say Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires having seen off the British, USSR and if history is anything to go by the US.

Too true but Afghanistan gains its notoriety because it has gone against empires and has consistently won. In fact they say Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires having seen off the British, USSR and if history is anything to go by the US.

Well, I didn't say the record was 100% but still to take on so many superpowers and win so often is something. Plus in most wars killing nearly the entire population is not a viable strategy and most importantly I doubt the US would kill 90% of the Afghan population so they have history going against them.

You could argue that every religion endorses peace; you could argue that every religion endorses violence and vengeance. Every single one of them has sentences in their religious texts that would support either of those assertions. Islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism, it just so happens that its time of being used to justify violence is now.

I would not be surprised if the "Koran burning mobs" were mobbing for more reasons than the fact that their religious texts had been burned. That was merely a catalyst. They're probably unhappy with being occupied (can't blame 'em), and unhappy with the violence and violent errors surrounding the occupying forces (again, can't blame them). In fact, I'm sure there's much more that they're upset about that I, as an American, can't even conceive of on my own. I feel as if they're being disrespected and treated poorly, though - and if I feel that way, as an American sitting in America, I can only imagine that what they are feeling is much, much worse.

Second paragraph was very insightful. Often times I am one with good insight, but I didn't keep in mind how the Afghan people must be sick of the U.S. occupation when I wrote that bit you quoted. I have realized in the past how people in Afghanistan and Iraq must be so angry and upset over U.S. troops being there and how we brought war to their coutries, but I've never really contemplated it deeply. You laid out some points that put things into perspective well, and you are right, it must be awful for the Afghans and Iraqis; the common people there, that just want to live their lives in peace but have had war brought to their countries.

Other religions do endorse violence, too. The major religions of the east are very good with this, some only endorsing violence only over things like capital punishment, or teaching that one should only use violent force as a last resort if it is for the purpose of protecting others who are innocent. Judaism, Christianity (mostly the Old Testament), and Islam are particularly bad with this. I have read a few excerpts from the Koran that explicitly endorse vengeange, though, and many Muslim nations still uphold instructions from the Koran that are very 'old-world' (such as executing a woman who committed adultery).

Well, let me just say that there is certain arrogance and sense of entitlement that I strongly disagree of. What about ways of living if you can't afford it? Does the logic that "I am accustomed to live in leisure and luxury so I must be payed more" make any sense at all? In such global economy, nobody is exempt from the basic rules: that if you can't stay competitive, you go bankrupt. Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by monsta666

Too true but Afghanistan gains its notoriety because it has gone against empires and has consistently won. In fact they say Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires having seen off the British, USSR and if history is anything to go by the US.

Religion and Governments are just two things that shouldn't mix. I won't pass any judgement on the religions, but I will on the people in charge that gave orders to carry out these attrocities.

__________________

Let us start here from Square one. No... from zero.
Back in my day, you had to come up with your own trolls instead of posting an image macro! You kids have it easy! Avatar/Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 MyAnimeList || Reviews